Being fired implies a lack of choice, a forced move, usually a specific end-date that you're going to be gone by. There's a power imbalance in the interaction w

Being fired implies a lack of choice, a forced move, usually a specific end-date that you're going to be gone by. There's a power imbalance in the interaction which is so devastating to people. I tread very carefully around the comparison and fully admit the different scale, but this kind of power-imbalance is exactly the reason why kidnapping and rape are considered so serious. The psychological damage the forced actions have on a person are painful. Being fired sucks because there was no choice involved, your life is changing right now and there's nothing you can do about it because you have no power. The article is talking about a method by which that equation of power imbalance is shifted to something more equal in nature. It's about getting the other person to agree to the statement "I should not be working here, in this role". When both sides agree, it stops being a power-imbalanced forced action and becomes working together to find a better place to be in the future. That's the core difference here. I've seen it done right, and I've seen it done wrong, and I am in awe of the managers I've had who can do it right.